MONTY PYTHON’S "LIFE OF BRIAN": ESSENTIAL FOR NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES?

Edward Pothier August 1999

This year (1999) is the twentieth anniversary of the premiere of the comedy MONTY
PYTHON’S LIFE OF BRIAN (August 1979). This movie, by the British comedy troupe known as
Monty Python, is supposed to be excerpts from the life of Brian Cohen, a Jew portrayed as
contemporary with Jesus. [So "contemporary" are Brian and Jesus with each other
that the opening scene has the traditional three biblical wise men from the Matthean
Infancy story bringing their gifts and praises to a "cave" with the newborn
Brian, before realizing their error. They take their gifts back and, off-scene, go to the
correct "cave", i.e. presumably that of Jesus.]

The movie was quite controversial because it was rather crude and shocking. Some of the
language was vulgar, with plenty of sexual innuendo (such as Pontius Pilate’s friend named
"Biggus Dickus"). It was also to me delightfully humorous, perhaps in an
off-beat British humor way. Some people claimed it was absolutely blasphemous (despite the
clear separation of Brian and Jesus). It did have an "R" rating from the Motion
Picture Association of America, which was at least *supposed* to mean those under 17 could
see it only if accompanied by an adult.

If Brian were supposed to *be* Jesus, there would be more grounds for objection. In a
scene near the middle of the movie Brian is mistaken for the Messiah by some extreme
followers. But Jesus, other than the above allusion to the Nativity scene, is really only
in the film once — in the distance during the the supposed delivery of the Sermon on the
Mount. In that scene some of the hearers at the edge of the large crowd, being at a
distance and not being fully attentive, mishear Jesus’ "Blessed are the
Peacemakers" as "Blessed are the Cheesemakers", an admittedly similar
sounding *English* word. See the final paragraph of this article for more on this
"error".

I had seen the movie only once, when it first came out. But because of an article I
read this summer [to be described below], I searched for and found the transcript of the
movie on the Web. It was also published years ago in a book. I have subsequently seen LIFE
OF BRIAN again on video and enjoyed it again.

This summer, while researching something else, I serendipitously came across an article
by Philip R. Davies, a British biblical scholar and University of Sheffield professor. The
15 page chapter entitled "Life of Brian Research" was pages 400-414 in the book
edited by J. Cheryl Exum and Stephen D. Moore, BIBLICAL STUDIES/CULTURAL STUDIES: THE
THIRD SHEFFIELD COLLOQUIM (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998). This
article strongly increased my desire to see LIFE OF BRIAN again.

The first paragraph of the article/chapter by Prof. Davies is strikingly provocative
and I reproduce it here:

"I have long been of the conviction that Monty Python’s _Life of Brian_ is an
indispensible foundation to any student’s career in New Testament studies. In my view, it
not only reflects a higher level of historical and biblical research than nearly all
exemplars of the Hollywood genre which count among its targets, but also engages with a
number of basic scholarly historical and theological issues. I do not claim that the
makers of this film (hereafter named jointly and severally as ‘Monty Python’) have fully
apprehended the significance of their contribution to ‘Life of Jesus’ research, nor that
they intended their contribution to be taken with scholarly seriousness. But their
authorial intent is of course entirely irrelevant in the application of Viewer-Response
Criticism, and it seems in any case perfectly proper that a master parodist should be in
turn parodied (in a fashion) by being subjected to an academic analysis. If Monty Python
wishes to make fun of what is serious, why should one not make something serious out of
what is fun?" [Davies, "Life of Brian Research", p. 400]

The rest of the article, although still seeming somewhat tongue-in-cheek, then shows
that, coincidently or not, the film is very true to history in some not generally
well-known ways.

Davies gives several examples from the late first century Jewish historian Josephus and
the later Rabbinic literature. In addition, there are some very subtle New Testament
allusions. He then has a second part of the article which deals with some more theological
issues. I do not wish to give all the details but I thought it was a very interesting
article, well worth the effort if one has access to a theological library which has the
book it is in.

[One point which Davies brings up, which he admits is the weakest of the historical
allusions since it is the "most susceptible to an explanation of coincidence",
is the above mentioned "Blessed are the Cheesemakers". While most likely this is
just a clever English language confusion with "Peacemakers", it is true that
there was in the city of Jerusalem in the first century a north-south running valley to
the west of the Temple mount. While this valley is not mentioned in the New Testament, it
is named in the first century  historian Josephus as the _Tyropoean Valley_, from the
Greek word for "cheesemaker". If "cheesemakers" were that important,
perhaps the pseudo-beatitude is not that far off.]

= Edward L. Pothier